Madras High Court
1391 cases · page 1 of 47
Showing 1–29The North Face Apparel Corp v.Controller of Patents and Designs
The North Face Apparel Corp challenged the Controller of Patents' refusal of its patent application (No. 202147026139) titled 'Systems and Methods for End-to-End Article Management' before the Madras High Court under Section 117A of the Patents Act, 1970. The Controller had rejected the application citing lack of inventive step over prior art documents D21-D24. The Court held that the Controller erred by dissecting the claims into isolated elements rather than assessing the invention as a whole, and overlooked the use of spectrophotometer and invisible markers for tracking the manufacturing process, which were not disclosed in the cited prior art. The appeal was allowed and the Controller was directed to grant the patent.
Aventose Energy Private Limited v.The Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs, Patent Office Chennai
Aventose Energy Private Limited appealed under Section 117A of the Patents Act, 1970 against the refusal of its patent application (No. 202141019671) for a 'System and Method for Operating Automobiles with an Electric Drivetrain' featuring safe mode activation upon fault detection. The Madras High Court found that the Assistant Controller had contradicted the First Examination Report (which accepted novelty) by subsequently holding the invention lacked novelty without giving the applicant an opportunity to be heard. The court further held that the Controller improperly conflated novelty with inventive step under Section 2(1)(ja) and failed to properly analyze the claims against prior art documents D1–D4.
Healthium Medtech Limited (earlier Healthium Medtech Private Limited) v.The Registrar of Trade Marks, Chennai
Healthium Medtech Limited filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus to compel the Registrar of Trade Marks to expeditiously dispose of Opposition No. 1027536 filed by Glenmark Pharmaceuticals against Healthium's trademark application No. 4270882 for the 'Healthium' device mark in Classes 05 and 10. The petitioner complained that despite evidence having been adduced, the opposition proceedings remained pending without a final hearing. The Madras High Court allowed the writ petition and directed the Registrar to hear both parties and dispose of the opposition on merits within four weeks.
CavinKare Private Limited v.Maha Aqua, Trading As Mahalakshmi Aqua
CavinKare Private Limited filed a trademark infringement suit against Maha Aqua (trading as Mahalakshmi Aqua) seeking a permanent injunction to restrain the defendant from using the mark 'MAA' or any deceptively similar mark in respect of goods in Class 32. The plaintiff relies on its registered trademarks 'MAA' under Nos. 1109946 and 6453733. The Court, after issues were framed and affidavits of admission/denial filed, approved a Joint Case Management Schedule suggested by both parties and set timelines for completion of evidence and oral arguments.
Exponent Energy Private Limited v.The Registrar of Trademarks, Trademarks Registry, Chennai
Exponent Energy Private Limited appealed against the refusal of its trademark application No. 5432621 for the word mark 'EXPONENT' in Class 42, covering scientific and technological services related to electric vehicle battery packs and charging equipment. The Registrar had refused registration under Section 11(1) of the Trade Marks Act, citing phonetic similarity with two earlier marks: 'EXPONENT' (Application No. 3595698) and 'EXPONENTIAL TECHNOLOGIES GROUP' (Application No. 5382808). The Madras High Court held that the impugned order was a non-speaking order that failed to record adequate reasons as required under Section 18(5) and did not consider the appellant's statutory requests under Sections 12, 18(4), and the proviso to Section 20. The matter was remanded for fresh consideration with directions to deal with each cited mark separately and pass a reasoned order within three months.
Apex Laboratories Pvt Ltd v.Elder Lifescience and Ambico Ayurvedic Health Care
Apex Laboratories Pvt Ltd, the prior adopter and registered proprietor of the trademark ZINCOVIT (TM No. 487453 in Class 5) since 1988, sought interim injunction against Elder Lifescience and Ambico Ayurvedic Health Care for using the deceptively similar mark NEO ZINCOVIT. The applicant also claimed copyright infringement of its registered artistic works (A-108878/2014) covering colour scheme, get-up, and layout. The Madras High Court was satisfied that the respondents were attempting to piggyback on the applicant's goodwill and granted interim injunctions on all three applications covering trademark infringement, copyright infringement, and passing off.
Asian Beverage Private Limited v.Kaira District Co-Operative Milk Producers Union Limited
Asian Beverage Private Limited filed a commercial suit against Kaira District Co-Operative Milk Producers Union Limited (Amul Dairy) seeking permanent injunction for alleged trademark infringement and passing off, claiming that the defendant's mark 'Amul TRU' was deceptively similar to its registered trademark 'TRUE VALLEY' (No. 2276842 in Class 32). The defendant filed an application under Order XIII-A of the CPC, 1908 to dispose of the suit without oral examination of witnesses, which was allowed by the court, resulting in the dismissal of the suit with no costs.
Asian Beverage Private Limited v.Kaira District Co-operative Milk Producers Union Limited
Asian Beverage Private Limited (plaintiff) filed a commercial suit against Kaira District Co-operative Milk Producers Union Limited (Amul Dairy) seeking permanent injunction for trademark infringement and passing off regarding its registered trademark 'TRUE VALLEY' (No.2276842 in Class 32) and the defendant's alleged use of the mark 'Amul TRU'. The court allowed an application filed under Order XIII-A of the CPC, 1908, to dispose of the suit without oral examination of witnesses, and consequently dismissed the suit with no costs.
Tregum Remedies Private Limited v.The Senior Examiner Of Trademarks
Tregum Remedies Private Limited challenged the refusal of its trademark application No. 5728063 for the mark 'THE SKIN COMPANY' in Class 3 by the Senior Examiner of Trademarks. The Madras High Court set aside the refusal order, holding that the impugned order was a generic, pre-conceived decision that failed to address the appellant's response and applied inconsistent reasoning. The Court directed the respondent to advertise the application in the Trademarks Journal under Section 20(1) read with Rule 39 of the Trade Marks Rules, 2017.
Annapurna Swadisht Limited v.Gef Foods India Private Limited
The Madras High Court dealt with a trademark dispute between GEF Foods India Private Limited, the proprietor of the registered mark ANNAPOORNA used for blended spices since around 1980, and Annapurna Swadisht Limited, which used the mark ANNAPURNA for snacks and namkeens. The plaintiff sought interim injunctions for trademark infringement and passing off, which were initially granted ex parte on 05.08.2026. The defendant filed applications to vacate the injunction, which the court dismissed, making the ad interim injunction absolute pending disposal of the suit, though confined to the goods and uses where prima facie confusion was established.
S.Balakrishnan Unni v.M/s. Vasudeva Vilasam Herbal Remedies (P) Ltd. & Anr.
This is a writ petition filed before the Madras High Court by S. Balakrishnan Unni, trading as Vasudeva Vilasam A.M. Pharmacy, seeking to quash the order dated 12.12.2008 in O.R.A. No. 92/2006/TM/CH passed by the Intellectual Property Appellate Board and to allow his rectification application against the first respondent. The court issued only a procedural order directing impleadment of the Registrar of Trademarks as a third respondent and issuance of fresh notice, posting the matter for further hearing.
M/s. Simpleenergy Private Limited v.The Controller of Patents, Patent Office, Intellectual Property Office, Chennai
Simpleenergy Private Limited, an electric vehicle company, filed a stay petition (CMP No. 23555 of 2026) in its appeal (CMA(PT) No. 32 of 2026) against the Controller of Patents' order dated 01.04.2026 rejecting Patent Application No. 202341071388. The petitioner's counsel fairly conceded that the patent application itself had been dismissed, rendering nothing for further consideration. The Madras High Court dismissed the stay petition as infructuous.
M Mathew v.Registrar Of Trademarks
The petitioner, M Mathew, filed a civil miscellaneous appeal before the Madras High Court seeking to set aside the order dated 25.06.2026 passed by the Registrar of Trademarks, which deemed his Opposition No.1238680 against Trade Mark Application No.5084713 for the mark 'MUTHOOTTU' in Class 36 (filed by Muthoottu Mini Nidhi Limited) as abandoned. The petitioner sought a direction to the Registrar to decide the opposition on merits after affording an opportunity of hearing. The court issued notice to the respondents and granted an interim stay of the processing of the trademark application pending further hearing.
Pennar Industries Limited v.R.Raghavendran
This case arose from an application filed by the 2nd respondent seeking dismissal of the main Original Petition (OP(TM) No. 59 of 2025) on the ground that it was filed in violation of Section 33(5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The 1st respondent's counsel submitted that necessary leave had been obtained from the NCLT in December 2025, which the applicant's counsel conceded. The court dismissed the application as infructuous and directed the main OP to be listed on 16.10.2026.
Good Drop Wine Cellars Private Limited v.Office of the Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks & Others
The petitioner, Good Drop Wine Cellars Private Limited, filed a writ petition seeking a writ of mandamus to direct the Trade Marks Registry to expeditiously dispose of its pending rectification petition (No. 269295) filed against the trademark registration (No. 1334766 in class 33) held by the third respondent, Vina Santa Carolina S.A. The petitioner's own trademark application had been refused due to the third respondent's prior registration, and the rectification petition had been pending since September 2020 with the third respondent failing to appear. The Madras High Court allowed the writ petition and directed the Registrar of Trademarks to dispose of the rectification petition within eight weeks.
Kaira District Co-Operative v.Asian Beverage Private Limited.
Court decision.
Surya Hotels And Properties v.Registrar Of Trade Marks
Surya Hotels And Properties, engaged in the hospitality business and proprietor of the registered mark 'Misty Mountain Resort' (Application No.1969012 in Class 43), filed a writ petition seeking cancellation of the rival 'Misty Mountain' trade mark (Registration No.2441920 in Class 43) held by Misty Mountain Plantation Resort, along with transfer of its pending rectification proceeding (No.MAS-279782) from the Trade Marks Registry to the Madras High Court's Intellectual Property Division. The petitioner subsequently restricted its prayer to only the transfer of the rectification proceeding, to which the second respondent raised no objection. The court allowed the petition to that limited extent, directing the Registrar of Trade Marks to transfer the rectification records to the Intellectual Property Division within four weeks.
R.Booma Rani v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks
The petitioner, a safety match manufacturer from Sattur, sought a writ of mandamus directing the Registrar of Trade Marks to accept her renewal application for the trade mark 'THOTHA' (Hindi label with parrot) registered under No.1532336 in Class 34. The mark was registered on 07.02.2023, nearly sixteen years after her 2007 application, by which time the first ten-year term had already expired on 20.02.2017. The Madras High Court allowed the petition, holding that since the mark had not been formally removed from the register under Rule 58(3) of the Trade Marks Rules, 2017, no time bar operated against renewal, and directed the Registrar to accept the renewal application and renew the registration for the period 20.02.2017 to 20.02.2027.
M/s. Cipla Ltd. v.M/s. Embiotic Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. & The Registrar of Trade Marks
This case involves two interlocutory applications filed by M/s. Cipla Ltd. in a pending trade mark opposition petition, seeking permission to file additional documents and to lead secondary evidence. The documents relate to various 'OMNI' formative marks including OMNICAL, OMNIGEL, OMNIM, OMNIX, and OMNICLAV. The respondents objected on the ground of delay, but the Madras High Court allowed the applications, holding that any objections could be raised at trial without causing prejudice.
Rio Children's Hospital Pvt Ltd (represented by its Managing Director Dr. M. Saravanan) v.Rajesh Jayaraj trading as Rio Scans and Labs
The petitioner, Rio Children's Hospital Pvt Ltd, sought transfer of a pending infringement and passing off suit (O.S. No. 302 of 2022) from the Principal District Court, Madurai to the Intellectual Property Division of the Madras High Court for consolidation with its rectification petition (O.P.(TM) No.64 of 2025) concerning the rival marks 'RIO' and 'RIO SCANS AND LABS'. The court held that consolidation and transfer under Rule 14 of the Madras High Court Intellectual Property Rights Division Rules, 2022 read with Section 24 CPC are discretionary and not automatic merely because a rectification proceeding is pending. The application was dismissed, with the court observing that the rectification petition could proceed independently and its effect could be worked out in the civil suit in accordance with the Trade Marks Act, 1999.
S. Purushottam, Sashibhushan & S. Nagraj, Trading as M/s. Sri Raghavendra Parboiled Industries v.ITC Limited & The Registrar of Trademarks
This case involves an application filed by the applicants, trading as M/s.Sri Raghavendra Parboiled Industries, seeking permission to mark additional documents in a trademark opposition proceeding against ITC Limited. The applicants sought to introduce documents including an invitation card, income tax returns, advertisements, and trademark prosecution records. The respondents objected on the ground of delay, as evidence and cross-examination had already been completed. The Madras High Court allowed the application, permitting the documents to be marked subject to proof, relevancy, and admissibility.
Eicher Motors Limited v.Reown Moto And Another
Eicher Motors Limited, the proprietor of the Royal Enfield brand and registered owner of the 'REOWN' trademark across multiple classes, sought an ad-interim injunction against Reown Moto and Hostinger Operation, UAB for allegedly infringing its registered marks by using 'REOWN MOTO / RM REOWN MOTO'. The plaintiff contended that the defendants' use of a deceptively similar mark amounted to trademark infringement. The Court extended the previously granted interim stay until the next date of hearing, noting that settlement discussions between the parties were underway.
Nokia Technologies Oy v.Assistant Controller of Patents And Designs
Nokia Technologies Oy filed a Civil Miscellaneous Appeal under Section 117 A of the Patents Act, 1970, challenging the order dated 20th September 2023 of the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs refusing Indian Patent Application No.202047054780. During the hearing, the appellant's counsel sought permission to withdraw the appeal and made an endorsement to that effect in the court bundle. The court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, with no order as to costs.
Ashok Leyland Limited v.GoDaddy.com LLC and John Doe (unknown)
Ashok Leyland Limited sought an ad-interim injunction before the Madras High Court against GoDaddy.com LLC and an unknown John Doe entity operating the website ashokleylandevdealer.com, alleging infringement of its registered trademarks including LEYLAND, ASHOK LEYLAND, AVTR, VIKING, and LEYLAND DOST. The applicant alleged that the respondents were illegally representing themselves as affiliated with or endorsed by Ashok Leyland and soliciting dealership/franchise opportunities using identical or deceptively similar marks. The Court extended the interim injunction previously granted on 28.08.2026 until 27.10.2026 and listed the matter for further hearing.
Ashique Exports Pvt. Ltd. v.Koyenco Soaps and Detergents Pvt. Ltd. & Koyenco Consumer Products Pvt. Ltd.
The plaintiff, Ashique Exports Pvt.Ltd., proprietor of the registered trademark 'Dr. WASH' (Registration No. 1130214) for washing soap, sued the defendants, Koyenco Soaps and Detergents Pvt.Ltd. and Koyenco Consumer Products Pvt.Ltd., alleging infringement and passing off through their use of the mark 'Dr. BRIGHT'. The defendants additionally filed a rectification petition under Section 57 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, seeking to expunge the plaintiff's trademark registration. The Madras High Court dismissed both the suit and the rectification petition, holding that the plaintiff was not entitled to any reliefs.
Ashok Leyland Limited v.Hostinger Operations UAB & 4 Others (Fino Payments Bank Limited, Sachin Kumar, Rohit Kumar, John Doe operating ashokaleyland.com)
Ashok Leyland Limited filed three Original Applications seeking ad interim injunctions against the respondents for trademark infringement, copyright infringement, and passing off arising from the use of its registered marks 'LEYLAND' and 'ASHOK LEYLAND' and the impugned domain name 'ashokaleyland.com'. The respondents included a Lithuanian web hosting company, a payments bank, two John Doe individuals, and an unknown operator of the infringing website. The Madras High Court issued notice to the respondents, permitted service by speed post/RPAD, and granted an order of interim injunction until the next hearing date.
M/s. K.R. Bakes Pvt. Ltd. v.Pradeep Kumar K.R. & The Registrar of Trade Marks
An Original Petition was filed by M/s.K.R.Bakes Pvt.Ltd. before the Madras High Court under Sections 47 and 57 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, seeking cancellation of Trademark Registration No. 6305011 (Class 30) granted in the name of the first respondent. The matter was listed under the caption 'memo of compromise,' and both parties submitted that they had arrived at an amicable settlement. The Court recorded the joint memo of compromise dated 19.08.2026 and disposed of the petition, with no order as to costs.
Eicher Motors Limited v.Reown Moto and Hostinger Operation, UAB
Eicher Motors Limited, the proprietor of the Royal Enfield brand and the registered owner of the 'REOWN' trademark across multiple classes, filed an application for an ad-interim injunction against Reown Moto and Hostinger Operation, UAB, alleging infringement of its 'REOWN' trademark and its formatives by the defendants' use of the mark 'REOWN MOTO / RM REOWN MOTO'. The Madras High Court issued notice to the respondents and directed the matter to be listed on 18.09.2026. An order of interim stay was granted as prayed for, restraining the defendants from using the impugned mark in any manner until the next hearing date.
Ashok Leyland Limited v.GoDaddy.com LLC and Another (John Doe operating ashokleylandevdealer.com)
Ashok Leyland Limited filed an application seeking an ad-interim injunction against GoDaddy.com LLC and an unknown John Doe respondent operating the website 'ashokleylandevdealer.com', alleging infringement of its registered trademarks including LEYLAND, ASHOK LEYLAND, AVTR, VIKING, and LEYLAND DOST. The applicant sought to restrain the respondents from using marks identical or deceptively similar to its registered trademarks in classes 7 and 12. The Madras High Court issued notice to the respondents, permitted private notice and service by speed post/RPAD, and granted an order of interim stay until the next hearing date of 25 September 2026.
Asif Traders v.Lion Dates Impex Private Limited
This application was filed by the Applicant/Defendant seeking permission to file five additional documents during the trial in a commercial suit. The court partly allowed the application, permitting documents nos. 1 to 3 (copyright application receipt, Form TM-C, and trademark registration certificate) subject to payment of costs of Rs. 5,000/- to the respondent within two weeks, while rejecting document no. 5 for not being filed in proper format and noting that document no. 4 was not pressed.
Facing a similar IP matter?
Arctic Invent is a specialist IP firm with deep litigation expertise across India, EU, US, and UK. Our team uses data-driven strategy to build stronger cases.